<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
[legitimacy does not matter ... ? Perhaps as the refrain for the
Parminder's on this list (be practical) perhaps the USers should
just lie down, forget the Kantian/enlightment/liberal underpinnings
of the US Constitution... as the financial crisis shows us (self
supervision only really sounds nice), the best brains in the world
can get it wrong and are not above rigging the system to their
advantage... but I guess IT is so different from real life, right?]<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div class="sl-art-head">
<h2 class="sl-art-head-hed">The Most Important Trade Agreement
That We Know Nothing About</h2>
<h1 class="sl-art-head-dek">The Trans-Pacific Partnership could
completely change intellectual property law. But the details
are being kept secret. </h1>
<p class="sl-art-byline"><big><big>By <a moz-do-not-send="true"
rel="author"
href="http://www.slate.com/authors.david_s_levin.html">David
S. Levine</a><span class="sl-art-datetime"><span
class="sl-art-head-pipe">|</span>Posted Monday, July
30, 2012, at 6:16 AM ET</span></big></big></p>
</div>
<div class="body parsys"> <big><big><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="pagebreak_anchor_1" style="visibility:hidden"></a></big></big>
<div class="parbase image slate_image section"><big><big> </big></big>
<div class="sl-art-illo-cntr"
style="width:250px;float:left;width:250px;"><big><big> </big></big>
<div class="sl-art-illo-cap"><big><big> Most members of
Congress do not even know what is in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership Agreement.<br>
<span class="sl-art-illo-cred">
<p>Photo by Hemera/Thinkstock.</p>
</span> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<div class="text parbase section"><big><big> </big></big>
<div class="text"><big><big> </big></big>
<p><big><big>Imagine being invited to formally offer input
on a <b>huge piece of legislation</b>, a proposed
international agreement that could cover <b>everything
from intellectual property rights on the Internet</b>
to access to medicine to investment rights in the
agreement’s signatory countries. For 10 minutes, you’d
be able to say whatever you’d like about the proposed
law—good, bad, or indifferent—to everyone involved in
the negotiations. But there’s a caveat: All of your
questions, all of your input, on what may be the most
controversial part of the package, would have to be
based on a version of the proposed international
agreement that was 16 months old. And in that 16-month
period, there were eight rounds of negotiations that
could have changed any and all of the text to which
you had access, but no one could tell you if that
version was still accurate.</big></big></p>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<div class="text parbase section"><big><big> </big></big>
<div class="text"><big><big> </big></big>
<p><big><big>Would you still take the deal? This is not a
hypothetical question; rather, this is the
take-it-or-leave-it offer made to the public in May by
the United States Trade Representative regarding the
intellectual property rights chapter of the massively
important but little-known Trans-Pacific Partnership
Agreement (TPP). Unfortunately, this modest but sad
excuse for public participation was the best offer to
ask questions and offer input to TPP negotiators since
the public phase of the negotiations began more than
two years ago. So civil society groups, academics,
experts (“nerds”), and regular Joe concerned citizens
said yes.</big></big></p>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<div class="text parbase section"><big><big> </big></big>
<div class="text"><big><big> </big></big>
<p><b><big><big>The above Kafkaesque scenario reveals a
truly odd and disturbing 21<sup>st</sup>-century
situation. Asking informed questions is probably
man’s oldest form of letting someone know his views.
But in 2012, with all of the technology that allows
for unprecedented (if not totally unfettered) flows
of information, the vestiges of 20<sup>th</sup>-century
secrecy continue to permeate international
lawmaking, as reflected in the negotiations of TPP.</big></big></b></p>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<div class="sl-art-ad-midflex"><big><big> <span
class="sl-ad-label">Advertisement</span><br>
</big></big>
<div id="insider_ad_inner"><big><big> <iframe
src="http://d3.zedo.com/jsc/d3/ff2.html?n=1302;c=70;s=14;d=9;w=300;h=250;l=http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh%3Dv8/3cc2/3/0/%2a/s%3B256607677%3B0-0%3B0%3B53303789%3B4307-300/250%3B40068918/40086705/1%3Bu%3Do%2A280959A305160858%2C400001828000274E%2C%2C%2Carticle%2Cabc%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bsz%3D446x33%2C300x250%3Bpos%3Dmidarticleflex%3Bpoe%3Dno%3Bad%3Dbb%3Bad%3Dfb%3Bkw%3Dre%3Bdel%3Djs%3BpageId%3D100120730001%3Bu%3Do%2A280959A305160858%2C400001828000274E%2C%2C%2Carticle%2Cabc%3Bfront%3Dn%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/1/ff/1%3B%7Esscs%3D%3f"
marginheight="0" marginwidth="0"
allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="250"
scrolling="no" width="300"></iframe> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<div class="text parbase section"><big><big> </big></big>
<div class="text"><big><big> </big></big>
<p><big><big>TPP is misleadingly labeled as a trade
agreement, making it seem like a relatively narrow and
limited agreement involving traditional topics like
tariffs and exchange of goods—the sort of
government-to-government discussions that seem too
esoteric to have much impact on the everyday citizen.
It is, in fact, much more than that. As explained by
the <a moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/united-states-trans-pacific-partnership">USTR</a>,
TPP is an “ambitious, next-generation, Asia-Pacific
trade agreement that reflects U.S. priorities and
values.” President Obama, who announced the goal of
creating TPP in <a moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank"
href="http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2009/december/trans-pacific-partnership-announcement">November
2009</a>, has <a moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank"
href="http://blog.trade.gov/2011/12/07/making-the-asia-pacific-region-a-top-priority-for-u-s-trade/">said</a>
that TPP will “boost our economies, lowering barriers
to trade and investment, increasing exports, and
creating more jobs for our people, which is my No. 1
priority.” That sounds pretty important—and more than
a little vague. Unfortunately, we don’t know much
about it beyond those platitudes.</big></big></p>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<div class="text parbase section"><big><big> </big></big>
<div class="text"><big><big> </big></big>
<p><big><big><b>Here’s what we think we know. Based upon the
<a moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://keionline.org/tpp">leaks</a> that
have occurred, it seems that <a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1980173">an
enacted TPP</a> would require significant changes
in U.S. and/or other signatory countries’ laws.</b>
It would curb public access to vast amounts of
information in the name of combating intellectual
property infringement (or piracy, depending on your
choice of words). The owner of the copyright in a song
or movie could use a “technological protection
measure”—what are often called “digital locks”—to
prevent your access to it, even for educational
purposes, and regardless of whether the owner had the
legal right to do so. Your very ability to read this
article, with hyperlinks in it, could be affected by
TPP. So, too, might your access to works currently in
the public domain and available free of charge. And
these <a moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/28/">concerns</a>
are only related to the intellectual property rights
chapter of TPP. There are apparently <a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/july/important-progress-tpp-talks-san-diego">more
than 20 chapters</a> under negotiation, including
“customs, cross-border services, telecommunications,
government procurement, competition policy, and
cooperation and capacity building,” as well as
investment and financial services. Technically, TPP
would only take effect in the 10 negotiating
countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New
Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam.
<a moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/18/us-usa-mexico-transpacific-idUSBRE85H1LC20120618">Mexico
joined recently, and Canada and Japan may soon
follow</a>. But in reality, it would also affect
citizens of any nations that interact with at least
one of those 10—which means even the shut-off North
Korea might feel its influence.</big></big></p>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<div class="text parbase section"><big><big> </big></big>
<div class="text"><big><big> </big></big>
<p><big><big>Sadly, even the above involves a fair amount of
conjecture and speculation, rather than verifiable
fact. This procedural bottleneck, fueled by a dogged
adherence to a belief in 20<sup>th</sup>-century-style
secrecy, requires direct engagement, even if that
engagement is flawed and wildly inefficient. So, on
July 2, I traveled to San Diego to take part in an
experimental, bizarre, new, and terribly important
civic duty: being among a fraction of the <a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/july/important-progress-tpp-talks-san-diego">nearly
300</a> “registered stakeholders” to speak to the
negotiators attending the 13<sup>th</sup> round of
negotiations of the TPP—even though none of us had any
clue what was really going on.</big></big></p>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<div class="pagebreak section"><big><big> </big></big></div>
<big><big><a moz-do-not-send="true" name="pagebreak_anchor_2"
style="visibility:hidden"></a></big></big>
<div class="text parbase section"><big><big> </big></big>
<div class="text"><big><big> </big></big>
<p><big><big>The only thing that I knew with certainty was
that I didn’t know much about what was happening in
the TPP negotiations, and therefore I couldn’t offer
much in the way of substantive questions and input,
which was the point that I wanted to make to the
negotiators. Other than “<a moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank"
href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/23220319444/ustr-gives-mpaa-full-online-access-to-tpp-text-still-wont-share-with-senate-staffers.shtml">cleared
advisors</a>”—primarily industry representatives—no
one outside the inner circle knows what is currently
being negotiated in TPP. Most members of <a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/TPP%20Letter%20FINAL.pdf">Congress</a>
do not even know what is in TPP. Indeed, the last
publicly available text of TPP’s intellectual property
chapter is a leaked version dated <a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/tpp-10feb2011-us-text-ipr-chapter.pdf">Feb.
10, 2011</a>. Nonetheless, the goal of the
“stakeholder engagement event,” as the TPP “Welcome
Stakeholders!” packet explained, was to provide an
“open and productive forum.” Yet the public knows more
about the aggregate numbers of nuclear warheads the
United States and Russia have deployed on
intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic
missiles under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
than it does about U.S. negotiating positions in TPP.
Thus, on “openness,” the TPP negotiators and USTR have
failed.</big></big></p>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<div class="text parbase section"><big><big> </big></big>
<div class="text"><big><big> </big></big>
<p><big><big>Does getting an “F” on openness lead to an “F”
on productivity? That depends on how you assess the
productivity of allowing civil-society groups like <a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=183">Public
Citizen</a> and academic institutions like <a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/">American
University Washington College of Law’s Program on
Information Justice and Intellectual Property</a> to
address the negotiators and attempt to ask questions
and offer meaningful input based upon a 16-month-old
leaked text that may no longer reflect what the
negotiators are actually negotiating, as they did on
July 2. On that rubric, based upon my own observations
in San Diego, a “D” would seem like a generous grade.</big></big></p>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<div class="text parbase section"><big><big> </big></big>
<div class="text"><big><big> </big></big>
<p><big><big>Especially given the leaks, failing to release
a current TPP text seems odd, largely pointless, and
arguably counterproductive. Now is the time when
expert (“nerd”) questions and input are most needed.
TPP, unlike the standard trade agreement, <em>requires</em>
public input because it involves broad questions like
what the Internet will be, not a relatively narrow
trade question like how many automobiles should be
traded with Korea.</big></big></p>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<div class="text parbase section"><big><big> </big></big>
<div class="text"><big><big> </big></big>
<p><big><big>This same closed-door mentality that <a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/01/19/web-darkness-the-day-after-why-the-sopa-protests-matter/">killed
the Stop Online Piracy Act</a> and has led to the <a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://www.zdnet.com/acta-rejected-by-europe-leaving-copyright-treaty-near-dead-7000000255/">near
death of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement</a>.
It likely will kill TPP if its negotiations do not
change course. At a minimum, it will lead to an
imbalanced and poorly drafted law.</big></big></p>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<div class="text parbase section"><big><big> </big></big>
<div class="text"><big><big> </big></big>
<p><big><big>More broadly, the TPP negotiations are part of
a larger trend to maintain the last vestiges of a
predigital society in which keeping a secret was much
easier. But especially in lawmaking, officials should
be at the vanguard of adjusting to the new contours of
information flows. USTR, other countries, and all
lawmakers should embrace the informed question and
embrace the nerd. They will learn much in the process
and antagonize fewer people for the betterment of all.
They will have a better chance of creating a
substantively and procedurally 21<sup>st</sup>-century
agreement, which should not just be USTR’s goal but
the collective goal of the United States. But they
need to embrace the informed questions quickly, as the
14<sup>th</sup> round of the TPP negotiations are now
scheduled in just a few weeks.</big></big></p>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<big><big> </big></big></div>
<div class="text parbase section">
<div class="text">
<p><big><big><em>This article arises from Future Tense, a
collaboration among Arizona State University, the
New America Foundation, and </em><strong>Slate</strong><em>.
Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies
affect society, policy, and culture. To read more,
visit the </em><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense.html"><em>Future
Tense blog</em> </a><em>and the </em><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.slate.com/futuretense"><em>Future
Tense home page</em></a><em>. You can also follow
us </em><a moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank"
href="http://www.twitter.com/futuretensenow"><em>on
Twitter</em></a></big></big><em><big><big>.<br>
Slate com/Washington Post</big></big><br>
</em></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>